[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: copy_from_user() fix
On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Jamie Lokier wrote:

> I bet no applications at all currently check for EFAULT from system
> calls, unless they're really weird and are doing it to behave _as if_
> they'd received SIGSEGV. Actually I bet they don't bother because every
> syscall would need to be wrapped. I'm theorising that this could screw
> up Wine in some unusual but valid cases.

I'll take your money. You prove that there are *no* applications
that check for EFAULT and I'll pay up. Otherwise you pay up. Just
one condition - we set a time limit :-).

Seriously though, having looked at good knows how many iBCS traces
I can tell you that there is plenty of code out there that assumes
the kernel will give error codes if something is wrong - even when
they don't explicitly check *what* error occurred. I'm willing to
bet some of it is EFAULT sensitive.

(There is code that depends on the *order* that things are checked
too - even though there is no standard for it)

> - Only a few applications care whether SIGSEGV is raised or not.

If you can say that for certain you have spent more on source licenses
than Bill Gates is worth!

> I propose EFAULT should be retained, but faulting syscalls should _also_
> raise SIGSEGV.

Nononono... If you *must* break compatibility with exisiting systems
so casually make it a personality flag. Preferably one that is off
by default unless an application *specifically* asks for it.


| Mike Jagdis | Internet: |
| Roan Technology Ltd. | |
| 54A Peach Street, Wokingham | Telephone: +44 118 989 0403 |
| RG40 1XG, ENGLAND | Fax: +44 118 989 1195 |

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.067 / U:2.288 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site